If you're going to claim the study is valid, and you've figured out why bats are breaking, then you've mitigated a large part of your risk. At the same time though, you're doubling the insurance requirements.

It makes me think they either aren't sure the study's findings are valid, or, the study showed there is more exposure than they thought with maple bats, but they don't want it to get out.

I suppose there's also the option that they don't want every schmuck with a lathe and garage turning bats and selling them to MLB players and a big policy like that will surely keep those out of the game.